I'm new to programming, especially in Ruby so I've been making some basic projects. I have this code and as far as I know, it should work, but it gives results that I don't expect
The program takes a and B and returns a^b. I did this as a programming exercise, hence why I didn't just go a**b.
class Exponate
attr_accessor :args
def initialize args = {}
#args = args
#ans = nil
end
def index
#args[:b].times {
#ans = #args[:a] * #args[:a]
}
puts #ans
end
end
e = Exponate.new(:a => 32, :b => 6)
e.index
e.args[:a] = 5
e.index
Returns
1024 # Should be 1_073_741_824
25 # Should be 15_625
But they are definitely not that
You can write like this:
class Exponate
attr_accessor :args, :ans
def initialize args = {}
#args = args
end
def index
#ans = 1 # multiplication will start from 1
#args[:b].times {
#ans *= #args[:a] #same as #ans = #ans * #args[:a]
}
puts #ans
end
end
#ans = #args[:a] * #args[:a] will return the same value, no matter how many times called, you need to reference the accumulator variable in some way to make use of the cycle.
Using an instance variable for a local does not seem right - their lifetime is longer, so after method exits they cannot not be collected if the whole object is still referenced somewhere. Also the #s are more error-prone - if you make a typo (for example - #asn instead of #ans), you'll get nil instead of NameError, it may be harder to debug, so better to write this way:
def index
ans = 1
args[:b].times {
ans *= args[:a]
}
puts ans
end
For loops with an accumulator in ruby it's better to use Enumerable#inject:
#ans = #args[:b].times.inject(1){|acc,v| acc * #args[:a]}
this way it's less likely to forget initialisation.
Related
I have the following code for an assignment. After much debugging I found what was happening
class Integer
def initialize()
#ans = ""
end
def ans
#ans = ""
end
def ans=(value)
#ans = value
end
def to_base(base)
# convert given number into the base
# figure out how to make it the most efficient
num = self
r = 0
loop do
r = num % base # modulus
#ans = r.to_s + #ans.to_s # add to answer
num /= base # division
break unless num != 0
end
english = #ans # return value
end
def to_oct
self.to_base(8)
end
end
puts 8.to_oct
puts 8.to_base(2)
Output:
10
100010
The output for the binary version should be 1000 not 100010
What it did was append the first instance of the class 8.to_oct onto the second call 8.to_base(2)
Is there a way to have this cleared as I want to use the same number (8) in this example and convert it to various base numbers. what am I doing wrong in my class?
Thanks!
I have a method, foo, that yields objects. I want to count the number of objects it yields.
I have
def total_foo
count = 0
foo { |f| count += 1}
count
end
but there's probably a better way. Any ideas for this new Rubyist?
Here's the definition for foo (it's a helper method in Rails):
def foo(resource=#resource)
resource.thingies.each do |thingy|
bar(thingy) { |b| yield b } # bar also yields objects
end
end
Any method that calls yield can be used to build an Enumerator object, on which you can call count, by means of the Object#to_enum method. Remember that when you call count the iterator is actually executed so it should be free of side effects! Following a runnable example that mimics your scenario:
#resources = [[1,2], [3,4]]
def foo(resources = #resources)
resources.each do |thingy|
thingy.each { |b| yield b }
end
end
foo { |i| puts i }
# Output:
# 1
# 2
# 3
# 4
to_enum(:foo).count
# => 4
You can pass an argument to foo:
to_enum(:foo, [[5,6]]).count
# => 2
Alternatively you can define foo to return an Enumerator when it's called without a block, this is the way stdlib's iterators work:
def foo(resources = #resources)
return to_enum(__method__, resources) unless block_given?
resources.each do |thingy|
thingy.each { |b| yield b }
end
end
foo.count
# => 4
foo([[1,2]]).count
# => 2
foo([[1,2]]) { |i| puts i }
# Output:
# 1
# 2
You can pass a block to to_enum that is called when you call size on the Enumerator to return a value:
def foo(resources = #resources)
unless block_given?
return to_enum(__method__, resources) do
resources.map(&:size).reduce(:+) # thanks to #Ajedi32
end
end
resources.each do |thingy|
thingy.each { |b| yield b }
end
end
foo.size
# => 4
foo([]).size
# => 0
In this case using size is sligthly faster than count, your mileage may vary.
Assuming you otherwise only care about the side-effect of foo, you could have foo itself count the iterations:
def foo(resource=#resource)
count = 0
resource.thingies.each do |thingy|
bar(thingy) do |b|
count += 1
yield b
end # bar also yields objects
end
count
end
And then:
count = foo { |f| whatever... }
You can also ignore the return value if you choose, so just:
foo { |f| whatever... }
In cases you don't care what the count is.
There may be better ways to handle all of this depending upon the bigger context.
I am very beginner in Ruby and probably the question is too easy but well, I've already spent some time on it and couldn't find a solution.
My Ruby script takes a number (ex 10) and a name (ex Vincent). What I want is to make an array looking like
Vincent0
Vincent1..
Vincent9
I can't figure a way to make it..
def arrayfy(string, number)
arr = []
0.upto(number-1) do |i|
arr << "#{string}#{i}"
end
return arr
end
Update: To add these as variables to the class
class Foo
def arrayfy(string, number)
0.upto(number-1) do |i|
var_string = "##{string}#{i}"
var_symbol = var_string.to_sym
self.instance_variable_set(var_symbol, "")
end
end
end
Array.new(10) {|i| "Vincent#{i}"}
gives you
["Vincent0", "Vincent1", "Vincent2", "Vincent3", "Vincent4", "Vincent5",
"Vincent6", "Vincent7", "Vincent8", "Vincent9"]
The documentation for Array is available at http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Array.html (googling for Array RDoc will give you the URL).
The bit in the braces ({|i| "Vincent#{i}"}) is called a block. You'll definitely want to learn about them.
Using Array.new with a block (docs):
def create_array(count, name)
Array.new(10) { |i| "#{name}#{i} }
end
Using Enumerable#reduce (docs):
def create_array(count, name)
(0...count).reduce([]) { |m,i| m << "#{name}#{i}" }
end
Or using Enumerable#each_with_object (docs):
def create_array(count, name)
(0...count).each_with_object([]) { |i,a| a << "#{name}#{i}" }
end
Using it:
# Using the array (assigning to variables)
array = create_array(10, 'Vincent') # => ['Vincent0', 'Vincent1', 'Vincent2' ...]
name = array[1] # => 'Vincent1'
Just for the record, a solution in a more functional style:
>> def arrayify(str, n)
.. ([str] * n).zip(0...n).map(&:join)
.. end
#=> nil
>> arrayify('Vincent', 10)
#=> ["Vincent0", "Vincent1", "Vincent2", "Vincent3", "Vincent4", "Vincent5", "Vincent6", "Vincent7", "Vincent8", "Vincent9"]
def array_maker(number, string)
result = []
for i in 0..number do
result << "#{string}#{i}"
end
result
end
In order to implement auto-vivification of Ruby hash, one can employ the following class
class AutoHash < Hash
def initialize(*args)
super()
#update, #update_index = args[0][:update], args[0][:update_key] unless
args.empty?
end
def [](k)
if self.has_key?k
super(k)
else
AutoHash.new(:update => self, :update_key => k)
end
end
def []=(k, v)
#update[#update_index] = self if #update and #update_index
super
end
def few(n=0)
Array.new(n) { AutoHash.new }
end
end
This class allows to do the following things
a = AutoHash.new
a[:a][:b] = 1
p a[:c] # => {} # key :c has not been created
p a # => {:a=>{:b=>1}} # note, that it does not have key :c
a,b,c = AutoHash.new.few 3
b[:d] = 1
p [a,b,c] # => [{}, {:d=>1}, {}] # hashes are independent
There is a bit more advanced definition of this class proposed by Joshua, which is a bit hard for me to understand.
Problem
There is one situation, where I think the new class can be improved. The following code fails with the error message NoMethodError: undefined method '+' for {}:AutoHash
a = AutoHash.new
5.times { a[:sum] += 10 }
What would you do to handle it? Can one define []+= operator?
Related questions
Is auto-initialization of multi-dimensional hash array possible in Ruby, as it is in PHP?
Multiple initialization of auto-vivifying hashes using a new operator in Ruby
ruby hash initialization r
still open: How to create an operator for deep copy/cloning of objects in Ruby?
There is no way to define a []+= method in ruby. What happens when you type
x[y] += z
is
x[y] = x[y] + z
so both the [] and []= methods are called on x (and + is called on x[y], which in this case is an AutoHash). I think that the best way to handle this problem would be to define a + method on AutoHash, which will just return it's argument. This will make AutoHash.new[:x] += y work for just about any type of y, because the "empty" version of y.class ('' for strings, 0 for numbers, ...) plus y will almost always equal y.
class AutoHash
def +(x); x; end
end
Adding that method will make both of these work:
# Numbers:
a = AutoHash.new
5.times { a[:sum] += 10 }
a[:sum] #=> 50
# Strings:
a = AutoHash.new
5.times { a[:sum] += 'a string ' }
a[:sum] #=> "a string a string a string a string a string "
And by the way, here is a cleaner version of your code:
class AutoHash < Hash
def initialize(args={})
super
#update, #update_index = args[:update], args[:update_key]
end
def [](k)
if has_key? k
super(k)
else
AutoHash.new :update => self, :update_key => k
end
end
def []=(k, v)
#update[#update_index] = self if #update and #update_index
super
end
def +(x); x; end
def self.few(n)
Array.new(n) { AutoHash.new }
end
end
:)
What I think you want is this:
hash = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = 0 }
hash['foo'] += 3
# => 3
That will return 3, then 6, etc. without an error, because the the new value is default assigned 0.
require 'xkeys' # on rubygems.org
a = {}.extend XKeys::Hash
a[:a, :b] = 1
p a[:c] # => nil (key :c has not been created)
p a # => { :a => { :b => 1 } }
a.clear
5.times { a[:sum, :else => 0] += 10 }
p a # => { :sum => 50 }
Is there a good way to chain methods conditionally in Ruby?
What I want to do functionally is
if a && b && c
my_object.some_method_because_of_a.some_method_because_of_b.some_method_because_of_c
elsif a && b && !c
my_object.some_method_because_of_a.some_method_because_of_b
elsif a && !b && c
my_object.some_method_because_of_a.some_method_because_of_c
etc...
So depending on a number of conditions I want to work out what methods to call in the method chain.
So far my best attempt to do this in a "good way" is to conditionally build the string of methods, and use eval, but surely there is a better, more ruby, way?
You could put your methods into an array and then execute everything in this array
l= []
l << :method_a if a
l << :method_b if b
l << :method_c if c
l.inject(object) { |obj, method| obj.send(method) }
Object#send executes the method with the given name. Enumerable#inject iterates over the array, while giving the block the last returned value and the current array item.
If you want your method to take arguments you could also do it this way
l= []
l << [:method_a, arg_a1, arg_a2] if a
l << [:method_b, arg_b1] if b
l << [:method_c, arg_c1, arg_c2, arg_c3] if c
l.inject(object) { |obj, method_and_args| obj.send(*method_and_args) }
You can use tap:
my_object.tap{|o|o.method_a if a}.tap{|o|o.method_b if b}.tap{|o|o.method_c if c}
Sample class to demonstrate chaining methods that return a copied instance without modifying the caller.
This might be a lib required by your app.
class Foo
attr_accessor :field
def initialize
#field=[]
end
def dup
# Note: objects in #field aren't dup'ed!
super.tap{|e| e.field=e.field.dup }
end
def a
dup.tap{|e| e.field << :a }
end
def b
dup.tap{|e| e.field << :b }
end
def c
dup.tap{|e| e.field << :c }
end
end
monkeypatch: this is what you want to add to your app to enable conditional chaining
class Object
# passes self to block and returns result of block.
# More cumbersome to call than #chain_if, but useful if you want to put
# complex conditions in the block, or call a different method when your cond is false.
def chain_block(&block)
yield self
end
# passes self to block
# bool:
# if false, returns caller without executing block.
# if true, return result of block.
# Useful if your condition is simple, and you want to merely pass along the previous caller in the chain if false.
def chain_if(bool, &block)
bool ? yield(self) : self
end
end
Sample usage
# sample usage: chain_block
>> cond_a, cond_b, cond_c = true, false, true
>> f.chain_block{|e| cond_a ? e.a : e }.chain_block{|e| cond_b ? e.b : e }.chain_block{|e| cond_c ? e.c : e }
=> #<Foo:0x007fe71027ab60 #field=[:a, :c]>
# sample usage: chain_if
>> cond_a, cond_b, cond_c = false, true, false
>> f.chain_if(cond_a, &:a).chain_if(cond_b, &:b).chain_if(cond_c, &:c)
=> #<Foo:0x007fe7106a7e90 #field=[:b]>
# The chain_if call can also allow args
>> obj.chain_if(cond) {|e| e.argified_method(args) }
Although the inject method is perfectly valid, that kind of Enumerable use does confuse people and suffers from the limitation of not being able to pass arbitrary parameters.
A pattern like this may be better for this application:
object = my_object
if (a)
object = object.method_a(:arg_a)
end
if (b)
object = object.method_b
end
if (c)
object = object.method_c('arg_c1', 'arg_c2')
end
I've found this to be useful when using named scopes. For instance:
scope = Person
if (params[:filter_by_age])
scope = scope.in_age_group(params[:filter_by_age])
end
if (params[:country])
scope = scope.in_country(params[:country])
end
# Usually a will_paginate-type call is made here, too
#people = scope.all
Use #yield_self or, since Ruby 2.6, #then!
my_object.
then{ |o| a ? o.some_method_because_of_a : o }.
then{ |o| b ? o.some_method_because_of_b : o }.
then{ |o| c ? o.some_method_because_of_c : o }
Here's a more functional programming way.
Use break in order to get tap() to return the result. (tap is in only in rails as is mentioned in the other answer)
'hey'.tap{ |x| x + " what's" if true }
.tap{ |x| x + "noooooo" if false }
.tap{ |x| x + ' up' if true }
# => "hey"
'hey'.tap{ |x| break x + " what's" if true }
.tap{ |x| break x + "noooooo" if false }
.tap{ |x| break x + ' up' if true }
# => "hey what's up"
Maybe your situation is more complicated than this, but why not:
my_object.method_a if a
my_object.method_b if b
my_object.method_c if c
I use this pattern:
class A
def some_method_because_of_a
...
return self
end
def some_method_because_of_b
...
return self
end
end
a = A.new
a.some_method_because_of_a().some_method_because_of_b()
If you're using Rails, you can use #try. Instead of
foo ? (foo.bar ? foo.bar.baz : nil) : nil
write:
foo.try(:bar).try(:baz)
or, with arguments:
foo.try(:bar, arg: 3).try(:baz)
Not defined in vanilla ruby, but it isn't a lot of code.
What I wouldn't give for CoffeeScript's ?. operator.
I ended up writing the following:
class Object
# A naïve Either implementation.
# Allows for chainable conditions.
# (a -> Bool), Symbol, Symbol, ...Any -> Any
def either(pred, left, right, *args)
cond = case pred
when Symbol
self.send(pred)
when Proc
pred.call
else
pred
end
if cond
self.send right, *args
else
self.send left
end
end
# The up-coming identity method...
def itself
self
end
end
a = []
# => []
a.either(:empty?, :itself, :push, 1)
# => [1]
a.either(:empty?, :itself, :push, 1)
# => [1]
a.either(true, :itself, :push, 2)
# => [1, 2]